[HarleyD]

Evident or not, it is in the Bible, so it must be true, right? Now you are using man-made classification and knowledge as being outside of the realm of biblical infallibility?

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. If God told people back in Job's days about penguins do you think anyone would have the slightest idea what God was talking about? God frequently used our knowledge base to convey His messages. There is no greater example of this in scripture then the famous "God repented" clauses. God doesn't repent but it was a way to convey a message.

I would say you are making progress...

In so short of time do you think you could make me an Orthodox... :O)

So, what am I to get from your reply? That now we need an up-to-date study guide

How about simply believing the word of God is true and there may be little things that if you are diligent in studying that you'll be able to reconcile.

It is based on the premise that the earth stands still, and the "heavens" rotate around us -- and we know that is not true any longer, don't we HD! So why does it still work?

A while back that another well-scholar Catholic on this site posted a recent article to me about Catholics who still do believe the heavens rotate around us and this was never rescinded by the Church. I don't know and I've never pursued it. I'm not saying I necessarily believe it but it was interesting.

But I will not wager that every "i" and "t" in the Scripture is the whole truth because, as you have admitted, it is dependent on "man-made criteria" of the time.

I believe I'm on record as saying every "i" and "t" is the whole truth. Simply because God used reference points for man to understand does not negate their truthfulness. Paul in one place state that he is giving his opinion about something. Simply because it is in God's word I have to accept that this opinion is inspired by God and represents God's truth.

I said I would limit my examples to Leviticus only and that there are tons of similar "manmade criteria"

This thread could end up being 5,000,000 posts long depending upon your comfort level to go through every dot and tittle. I don't find "tons" of these examples but a few. And the more I study the more I find that others have had the same questions and have provided plausible explanations. It is only those who are looking for errors who will find errors.

However, if there are factual errors (errors of math, for example) that means there are errors in that Book.

Oh, I see. It now is left to a bunch of old guys to sort out the errors from the truth. Sorry, your way out of line from what the early church fathers believed.

[kosta50]

There is no greater example of this in scripture then the famous "God repented" clauses. God doesn't repent but it was a way to convey a message

Mayabe you need to look up the word rationalizing which you seem to use a lot and confuse it with "understanding" when it is devising self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior.

"God repented" is of course nonsense, but "it was a way to convey a message."

And what message would that be HD? That God said "Ooops!" Why not just say that God's, Who is slow to anger, got angry (although we all know that God doesn't get angry, right?) and decided to drown not just the rotten man (whom He ordained to be rotten according to your theology), but innocent animals as well -- save for those few (which Noah sacrificed every day; wonder how come he didn't run out of some species...). What's the message, HD?

[kosta50]

If God told people back in Job's days about penguins do you think anyone would have the slightest idea what God was talking about? God frequently used our knowledge base to convey His messages

This is amazing! Penguins were not known, which is why no one is mentioning them, but hares were very much known to the Hebrews. And everyone could see that hares are not hoofed animals that don't chew cud.

Likewise, why would God tell people that the earth sits on four pillars instead of telling them that the earth is round and has no corners? Your rationalizations are suggesting that God deliberately told people things that were not true.

[kosta50]

is only those who are looking for errors who will find errors

Darn it, if the world just took care of Gallileo, things would have been less confusing today. We would all believe in errors and be perfectly content that the earth is flat, that it sits on four pillars, that diseases are caused by demons, that lightening is God's anger, that the heavnes are in the sky above, that the moon is a perfect sphere, that hares chew cud and that bats are strange birds.

Perhaps those who look for errors find errors, and those who live in denial find none.

[kosta50]

I don't find "tons" of these examples but a few

I believe that you choose to fins but a few. If you tell me what "few" means to you, I will tell you how close or far you are from the truth.

And the more I study the more I find that others have had the same questions and have provided plausible explanations

You mean by "study" them to say devising self-satisfying but incorrect reasons as "explanations?"